My view on the "truth" of things planar, spatial, and chronological uses a fictional version of the uncertainty principle. What we see directly in front of us is "true" in the immediate sense. However, when perceiving events across time, space, or dimensions—such as through scrying—what we observe may only be one possible version of what exists, shaped by the perspective of the observer. If one were to travel there in person, the destination might not align perfectly with previous remote observations. This is not unlike how divination magic in many D&D settings acknowledges the uncertainty of the future. In my personal cosmology, this uncertainty extends not just to the future but also—though to a lesser degree—to the past, distant locations, and other planes.
By traveling and reporting their findings, explorers create causal links between places—weak at first, but strengthened as others follow in their footsteps and confirm their observations. This raises a question: Does the universe exist before it is explored? While we cannot prove this one way or another, in my interpretation, historians and archaeologists shape our understanding of the past by defining it through research. But does this process only reveal the past, or does it subtly shape what "truly happened"? If a historian uncovers evidence disproving a legend, was that legend false before their discovery? Or do both the disproven myth and the historian’s facts exist in some way, each with differing levels of causal strength?
A real-world historical example is Francisco de Orellana, the Spanish explorer who, in 1541-1542, became the first European to navigate the Amazon River. His reports described large, complex civilizations along the riverbanks. However, later explorers, such as Jesuit missionary Samuel Fritz (1689-1707), did not report seeing such civilizations. If these societies existed, they may have been devastated by European diseases before later Europeans could observe them, note the rather long time that elapsed. Orellana’s once-dismissed accounts are now being reconsidered, as archaeologists have found traces of large Amazonian civilizations.
In my cosmology, Orellana’s reports created a weak causal link between Europe and the Amazonian civilization. However, because his claims were not widely accepted, the connection remained fragile. By the time later travelers arrived, the link had faded, and they found the river but not the civilization. Could that civilization still exist in an alternate world, one that we no longer have access to?
This effect is even more pronounced when the Far Realm is involved. In my setting, cause and effect do not follow logical patterns there, and Prime Material locations influenced by the Far Realm may experience similar instability in their causal relationships.
So, does an ultimate "true reality" exist behind all this? I’d suggest that it does, but that this reality is shaped by a subconscious, collective agreement among conscious minds. What most people believe to be real becomes real. If every child believes in monsters under the bed, such creatures come into existence. If people believe fairies dwell in a distant hill, they do. If a widespread faith holds that St. Cuthbert’s realm is a celestial domain where his followers labor eternally to improve the universe, that belief make it real. Whether these things existed before people believed in them may be a moot question—but that wouldn’t stop natural philosophers from investigating, which in turn could affect what is perceived as real.
In my cosmology, not all beliefs hold equal weight—scholars with deeper knowledge might outweigh the beliefs of the masses, influencing reality more directly. I haven't fully explored the implications of this idea, but it could be an interesting concept to develop in play. That said, this discussion is mostly something a friend and I enjoy exploring outside the game, and it doesn’t have a direct impact on gameplay.
This post was written with the help of ChatGPT. I don't want to derail this thread, I am just making observations about my method, to discuss this we need another thread. I first asked about Francisco de Orellana and Samuel Fritz and, after I had written a version of the text, I asked ChatGPT to check the language (I have a touch of dyslexia) and make the text less confrontational. Thus the many "in my campaign" and similar expressions. But this is definitely my work, not the AI's, to get information about Francisco de Orellana I had to make rather precise questions requiring prior knowledge and the ideas presented are mine.
